This one’s too good to make you click for more.
Accompanied by a violin, Coalition Vancouver candidate Wai Young spoke to the media and public today about her platform. Fascinating stuff leading into the October 2018 Civic Election.
Free car parking on Sunday.
No new bike lanes, unless an existing one is ripped out. Bike lanes are a private roadway system for a select group. And dangerous, too. With thanks to Jen St. Denis.
No more “radical, agenda driven, war on transportation”. A portentious phrase.
Speaking of no agendas, she would rip out existing bike lanes. Including the 12-foot one being imposed on families and children in Kits Beach [Ed: plenty of plans and talk, but no bike lane approved there].
And by the way, the NPA and Vision can’t fix Vancouver, because they’ve agreed on virtually every issue. Thanks to Justin McElroy.
And, finally, from Ms. Young’s Twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/WaiYoung/status/1009884722611171330
[Ed: Homeliness is not a crime. Seems like she’s subtley throwing shade at people without mirrors.]
Tactically, the anti-bike pro-car vote exists, but it’s been NPA turf — so the likely outcome here is to siphon off a segment of a sub-set of right-leaning voters from the NPA candidate. This segment is noisy but historically too small to swing an election, even before it’s split.
But this is a harbinger of a vote-split on the right, just like the left is facing. If both left and right are split, doesn’t this leave a mythical middle wide open for some candidate? Perhaps someone independent of a partisan songbook? (Hello Shauna Sylvester and Kennedy Stewart).
Stamp out homeliness – drab, plain and non-glamorous people are bringing our city to its knees!
It might be fun to vote in once councillor from this coalition for the entertainment value, but mayor? No thanks,
I guess that she has yet to learn that being anti bike is not a winning strategy.
She also doesn’t get that when we’re not irritating her by being on our bikes, we’re in front of her stupid SUV in our stupid SUV. Yes, we are traffic.
Unfortunately, this asinine mentality worked to get Doug Ford elected.
What she also doesn’t get is that e-bikes will proliferate on a massive scale. What she considers to be annoying bike lanes will become major cycling corridors – yes, critical mass.
It could be a winning strategy in the undemocratic first past the post electoral system. It would be a losing strategy in a ranked ballot
It could be a winning strategy in the undemocratic first past the post electoral system.
I had a disageeable incident leaving New Brighton a couple of days ago. We were cycling east along the Portside bike route and then proceeded north across the zebra crossing leading to the tunnel that exits at Bridgeway St. We entered the intersection well before a motorist who was turning right to head west on the McGill on ramp. He thought we should cede way because he perceived the marking as a crosswalk that we shouldn’t have been cycling on, whereas I see it as a continuation of the bike route that should in fact be painted green, to alert motorists of that fact. The standard convention that he who arrives first at the intersection goes first would apply, and in the event that two arrive simultaneously, the one on the right goes first. There’s another zebra crossing on the other side of the tunnel as well where motorists have a stop sign. Green would be appreciated here too. I go through here at speed pretty regularly.
What say those in the know.
I’ll take a crack at it.
I think this may be the intersection you refer to.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2881296,-123.0335557,3a,75y,207.63h,61.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_GzbkRGnLSksHYc-UYEi4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3
If you were leaving the park, you were likely heading south across the crosswalk, not north. Correct me if I have it wrong.
If that is the crosswalk, you have a right to ride in it. It is marked with elephant feet, the squares alongside the zebra stripes, so it is in fact a crossbike as well as a crosswalk.
It isn’t about who gets there first. You have the ROW over the vehicle if you are in the crosswalk, eg you have left the curb. You can’t leave the curb so close to an approaching vehicle that they can’t stop in time, but otherwise you can go ahead. If you haven’t left the curb, the vehicle is not obligated to stop for you. That isn’t commonly understood IMO, but if you are waiting at the curb, on a bike or walking, it is nice if they stop, but they don’t have to.
If you were in the roadway instead of the crossbike, you would have the ROW over a vehicle turning at that intersection, as he would have been behind you, and would have to wait for you to clear the intersection.
Green paint doesn’t confer a ROW. It is there to alert people that a conflict zone exists.
Thanks, you are bang on. We were in the elephant foot / zebra crosswalk well before the motorist, so had the ROW, and feel vindicated. But who knows about this elephant thing? Certainly the motorist didn’t know. It looks like a regular crosswalk, just wider.
After the motorist’s anger at me, I did yell an obscenity back – something my 11-year-old probably shouldn’t have heard.
It’s not that simple. If this were a simple bike lane or a protected bike lane, then cyclist has ROW. However, this is a multi use path (cycling and walking). So is it a sidewalk or a special purpose road lane for cycling? Or both? I can see why the driver was confused since even we cyclists cannot agree. That is why the BC Cycling Coalition has been pushing for upgrades to the Motor Vehicle Act for over 10 years. It should be crystal clear who has the ROW at every intersection. Now it is very murky and probably leading to many injuries and deaths as a result.
It is not a bike lane because it is not in the roadway. It is an off street MUP. But that doesn’t really matter IMO, since that isn’t where the conflict occurred.
The driver should not have been confused (or angry) since the person on a bike was in a cross walk/cross bike at the time, and that crossing was marked for use by people on bikes.
I think that changes to the MVA are important and needed. But this would have more to do with lack of driver education, it seems. Changing the laws won’t solve the problem by itself if nobody teaches road users what the laws are.
I was under the impression that to be treated like a pedestrian in a crosswalk the cyclist has to dismount?
No, if conditions are met the BC MVA allows a person on a bike to use a crosswalk. In that case, they are treated like a pedestrian. This is per section 124, and 183(3)b. See the MVA. What is further required is that the municipality must have a bylaw that references section 124, and specifically permits riding in appropriately marked crosswalks. Vancouver has such a bylaw.
You are not alone in your impression. The RCMP famously erred in this, but to their credit, corrected their information.
http://bc.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=2087&languageId=1&contentId=48158
One further note. Elephant feet are not always placed straddling a pedestrian crosswalk, there are two separate options for their use. They may also be placed alongside, so that there is a crosswalk, and a crossbike running parallel to it. In that case, the crossbike is not for people walking, and the crosswalk is not for use by bikes. This can be seen crossing W 2nd, and the adjoining northbound Cambie turn lane, under the Cambie Bridge. Misuse of those crossings is evident by many. That intersection is currently being improved, which should help.
OK – so it is a MUP. And CoV has passed a bylaw stating that cyclists may ride in a crossing marked by elephant feet. But where in CoV bylaws or MVA does it state that cyclists in this situation have RoW over car traffic?
I suggest again the cyclist does not have RoW in this situation.
You still haven’t convinced me. I believe that the motorist was right but for the wrong reasons. My take is that cyclists must always yield in these situations. If there are no rules specifically stating RoW then there is no RoW. If Arnie had been hit, then he would have been partly to blame.
And the situation of a cyclist going the other way on the path is definitely not covered by the current version of the MVA.
I had another weird incident the very next day a block west of Boundary on Adanac at Kootenay. There was no traffic and just one woman standing near the crosswalk looking back at her off-leash German Shepherd sniffing around a good ten feet behind her.
It never occurred to me that she was planning to cross – there is no curb to step off but, as I went by, she said smarmily that the crosswalk applied to me as well.
My retort was reflex, instantaneous, and crude.
I thought that dog ownership was supposed to mellow people out.
What? No buck-a-beer? She’s missing out on a winning policy strategy there.
We should send Ms. Young a bouquet of flowers for helping us narrow the rather large field of candidates to vote for by one.
I agree. This definitely is a disqualifier for me.
Not to mention all the double-speak. Up is down. Right is left. Black is white. Fewer transportation options is more transportation options. The solution to congestion is the cause of congestion. Playing politics is not playing politics. Good things are bad things.
Some people romanticize the past and miss what it was like to drive back then and want to bring that back. I understand that and it can be attractive to think you can bring it back however the past was only better because there were fewer cars in the city then.
And doesn’t she remember when the category she happens to be in (Chinese drivers) was blamed for congestion?
OK – so it is a MUP. And CoV has passed a bylaw stating that cyclists may ride in a crossing marked by elephant feet. But where in CoV bylaws or MVA does it state that cyclists in this situation have RoW over car traffic?
I suggest again the cyclist does not have RoW in this situation.
If the cyclist was already in the marked crossing before the vehicle arrived, as Annie posted, then the person in the marked crossing has the ROW. It isn’t about the MUP, it is about the marked crossing.
The MVA says the motorist must yield to the pedestrian in the crossing. It says that if the City
passes a bylaw and marks the crosswalk, then people may also ride in it. I don’t accept that given the above, drivers may hit people in marked crossings with impunity if they aren’t walking.
The conflict in this case appears to be that the driver didn’t accept that the cyclist could ride in the marked crossing. Turns out he can.
You still haven’t convinced me. I believe that the motorist was right but for the wrong reasons. My take is that cyclists must always yield in these situations. If there are no rules specifically stating RoW then there is no RoW. If Arnie had been hit, then he would have been partly to blame.
Arno: “you still haven’t convinced me”
OK. Can we agree that per the MVA, designated users of a crosswalk have the ROW, when they are in the crosswalk, if they enter the crosswalk according to the regulations?
Next, the base definition of designated user includes people walking, people in wheelchairs, and people in strollers or prams. Per the MVA. So it isn’t a shoe vs wheel issue.
Can we agree that there is a regulation on who further qualifies as a designated user of a crosswalk, specifically referencing people on cycles, although this has requirements including a local bylaw, and crosswalk marking?
My position is that if the conditions are met, the person in the crosswalk has the ROW. You can’t have marked multimodal crosswalks and say that people have to avoid hitting some people crossing, but not others. We can’t get hung up on the fact that the original law starts off with the phrase pedestrian, when pedestrian has already been defined to include groups beyond those walking in this context.
How is a motorist supposed to know what municipality has passed a bylaw? That seems unreasonable, better that it be an absolute rule.
I agree. Road rules should be clear and consistent. That is why we need updates to the Motor Vehicle Act as well as education on new rules and road markings. Especially at intersections, right of way rules should be obvious to everyone. I am sure that lots of crashes are happening because of the murkiness in the rules.
Fwiw – was in the exact same spot today and a motorcylist, who could easily have shot through in front of me, let me go first. It was unnecessary, but nice. A yield to cyclists sign might help; after all, bicycles are continuing straight along the bike route to the tunnel while vehicles are turning right to get onto McGill.
Going the other way, down the hill at speed to the tunnel – odds are you’re hitting 30km plus – where east bound vehicles have a stop sign, always worries me. Though bicycles don’t have a stop sign, motorists see a crosswalk – they don’t see elephant feet, or perceive it as a MUP or Crossbike.
It still boils down to motordom dominator mentality vs survival on a bicycle. Right and wrong don’t matter when you’re maimed.
Btw, should the proper nomenclature be bike route, bike way, bike path, bike lane … bike road?
Multi use path in this case. Signs are problematic since they are never where people are looking. The Dutch have figured this out long ago. They use road markings and road design to relate the rules. I love their shark teeth (and reverse) also known as Yield lines.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=shark+teeth+road+markings&rlz=1C1GCEA_enCA779CA779&oq=shark+t&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0j69i59j69i57j0l2.2363j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Imagine a row of shark teeth in front of the crossing. No confusion.Clear rules. MUP shoiuld have reverse shark teeth lines to show RoW to MUP users.
This is Vision Zero stuff. Province has a strong Road Safety group under the Solicitor General but it seems that the rest of Cabinet is not yet completely onside.